An Analysis of George Zimmerman's Not Guilty Verdict

Many were shocked when it was announced that a jury of six women found George Zimmerman not guilty of all charges associated with the death of Trayvon Martin.  However, it must be remembered that the jury had to follow the letter of the law in deciding Zimmerman's fate.  At least one juror has come out publicly and stated that although she believed Zimmerman "got away with murder," that because she had to follow what the law stated, she was duty bound to find Zimmerman not guilty.

To say that Zimmerman "got away with murder" but was not guilty is a confusing statement to make. So what exactly was Zimmerman charged with, and how could the jury find him not guilty? First, the actual letter of the law in Florida, in pertinent parts, is laid out here, so the exact standards by which Zimmerman was being prosecuted can be undersood.

From the very beginning, Zimmerman admitted killing Trayvon.  But Zimmerman claims the killing was in self-defense, or in legal terms was “excusable” or “justified.”  These terms are legal terms of art that mean that a perpetrator will not be punished for an act that on its face is a crime if there is a good legal reason for its commission, such as self-defense or reasonable mistake.  Essentially, a homicide is not a crime if it is justified or excused.  Zimmerman's defense team ultimately declined to invoke the controversial stand your ground Florida law and thus did not seek to gain immunity from prosecution and civil suit.  (Fla. Stat. 776.032).

The DA charged Zimmerman with second degree murder and the lesser included charge of manslaughter. At the close of evidence, the prosecution asked the judge to allow the jurors to consider third degree murder on the basis of child abuse.

The crux of the proof necessary for the charge of second degree murder (punishable up to life in prison), boils down to the commission of an "imminently dangerous" act "evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life."  Premeditation is not necessary.  Under Florida law, in order to prove that Zimmerman had a "depraved mind" the prosecution had to present evidence that he acted with "ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent."  See Leasure v. State, 105 So. 2d 5 (Fla. App. 2012).

In order to prove manslaughter (punishable up to 15 years in prison), the prosecution had to present evidence that Zimmerman committed an intentional act that caused Trayvon's death.  See Haygood v. State, 109 So. 2d. 735 (Fla. 2013).  But if there is evidence for a legally sufficient excuse or justification, no crime was committed.  Loosely speaking, the crux here is whether Zimmerman honestly and reasonably feared for his life at the time he pulled the trigger; in other words, whether Zimmerman's actions were reasonable given the circumstances. In deliberating, the jurors have to engage in Monday night quarterbacking.

The evidence that was presented in this case makes it a close call.  There was certainly enough evidence to put Zimmerman on trial for the death of Trayvon, but the jury had a tough job.  In my opinion, the most important result of this case is opening the national dialogue about the assumptions that are routinely and all too often unjustifiably made about young black men in general.

At the end of the day, whether Zimmerman committed a crime under Florida law was a close call. Perhaps the prosecutors didn't present their case well enough, perhaps the police did not gather enough evidence, or perhaps the jurors were not well-instructed on the law. I do believe it was a mistake for the prosecution to argue Zimmerman was a vigilante, purposefully acting as judge, juror and executioner.  Either way, whether the evidence was enough to convict was ultimately up to the jury.

 Share

Everyone, and Now His Mother: The Latest of Zimmerman's Family & Friends to Speak to Media

I have previously opined on this blog that George Zimmerman's supporters talking to the media are not helping his chances of acquittal at trial.  Very few attempts at using the media by Zimmerman's family, friends and attorneysin defense of his actions have done anything but appeared to worsen public opinion against Zimmerman.  On September 11, 2012, Mark and Sondra Osterman appeared on the Dr. Phil Show to talk about their friend George Zimmerman.  The couple claimed that during Zimmerman's absence from public appearances following the shooting of Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman stayed in their home.  This past Monday, October 8, 2012, Zimmerman's mother, Gladys Zimmerman, joined his brother Robert Zimmerman, Jr., on Piers Morgan Tonight on CNN and became the latest on the growing list of Zimmerman's family of friends who just can't seem to stay out of the media spotlight.

On the Dr. Phil show the Ostermans were perhaps the first of Zimmerman's camp to be interviewed that actually appeared to help Zimmerman's image.  While Mark Osterman, a law enforcement officer, was very careful to never repeat what Zimmerman told him about the shooting incident (an extremely wise choice), Osterman stated, based on what Zimmerman told him and based on his knowledge of Zimmerman's character, that he believed Zimmerman did not break the law.  What makes Osterman's statements particularly credible is that, recognizing hindsight being 20/20, if he had the chance, Osterman would advise Zimmerman to act differently on that tragic night.  Perhaps more importantly, Osterman did not engage in the victim-blaming that so many others to have spoken to the media have done.  He appeared thoughtful and insightful in his comments rather than the cavalier way in which others (including Zimmerman himself) have defendend Zimmerman.

 

Yesterday on Piers Morgan Tonight, Zimmerman's mother emphatically denounced the notion that Zimmerman is a racist.  She stated she places her faith in the judicial system to find her son innocent.  Gladys's comments, though unwise, may not have been damaging to Zimmerman's image.  In contrast, Zimmerman's brother engaged in the same victim-blaming in which he has engaged from the beginning.    While the Ostermans may have helped Zimmerman's image, the latest interview may be enough to erase whatever goodwill the Ostermans were able to garner for Zimmerman.

 

 Share

Arizona's Immigration Law Is Mostly Unconstitutional, Says US Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court handed down its long anticiated ruling in Arizona v. Untied States, putting at issue Arizona's controversial immigration law, SB 1070, passed in 2010.  The Ninth Circuit struck down the law in its entirety, and Arizona appealed to the US Supreme Court. Today, the US Supreme Court struck down three of four provisions as violating the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution.
The Arizona law sought to criminalize the failure to comply with federal registration requirements for illegal alieans, and seeking employment or engaging in work in Arizona while being an illegal alien. SB 1070 also gave authority to Arizona law enforcement to arrest without a warrant anyone who the officer had probable cause to believe is an illegal alien, and to stop, detain or arrest to determine a person's immigration status.
The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution has been interpreted to provide that in areas where the federal government intends that its laws occupy the entire subject matter of that law, no state can enact laws that attempt to address that subject matter.  It has long been held that the federal government occupies the entire subject matter of immigration and that states cannot regulate this subject matter.  In striking down the criminal elements and the authority to arrest without a warrant granted by SB 1070, the US Supreme Court pointed out that the federal government has established that illegal alien status is a civil, not criminal matter, and that the federal government has the sole discretion to make such policy decisions regarding immigration and its enforcement.  The Court stated, "Unauthorized workers trying to support their families, for example, likely pose less danger than alien smugglers or aliens who commit a serious crime."  The Court went on to state that the federal government has the power to consider equities in forming policies regarding enforcement of the federal immigration laws.
This particular point gets to the heart of the matter.  Arixona's SB 1070 sought to make criminals of immigrants, who may be hard working, otherwise law abiding residents.  This is not Arizona's call. This is the federal government's call.  The scare tactics employed by Arizona law makers that illegal aliens are all rampant, violent criminals, casts a net that ensnares workers trying to make a living and who make a positiove contribution to society.  Enacting laws based on fear and ignorance harken back to some of the darker moments in human history, and should have no part in this country's democratic society.  Additionally, the Supremacy Clause prevents the 50 states from enacting 50 different sets of immigration laws, as the federal government already has a body of law in place. 
The Court upheld the provision of SB 1070 that authorizes Arizona law enforcement to "make a 'reasonable attempt . . . to determine the immigration status' of any person they stop, detain, or arrest . . ."  The Court emphasized that SB 1070 provided that the "stop and check" provision could not be the result of racial profiling and that communication between federal and state authorities was inherent and imperative. 
Despite holding the challenge to the stop and check provision of SB 1070 as being premature because Arizona courts did not have an opportunity to interpret how it will be enforced, the Court specifically left open future challenges to the stop and check provision based on Arizona's enforcement and interpretation of its law.



Share